Guatemala vs Vietnam: Informal care employment
Informal care employment over time
- Guatemala
- Vietnam
How they compare
Vietnam currently reports 512.91 against 502.48 in Guatemala, a difference of 10.43.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Vietnam ahead.
Guatemala ranks 16th and Vietnam ranks 15th of 43 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Guatemala averaged higher in 1 and Vietnam in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guatemala | Vietnam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 406.5 | 507.17 | 100.67 | Vietnam |
| 2020s | 546.68 | 488.55 | 58.13 | Guatemala |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher informal care employment, Guatemala or Vietnam?
- Vietnam, at 512.91 against 502.48 in Guatemala as of 2024.
- What is the difference in informal care employment between Guatemala and Vietnam?
- 10.43, with Vietnam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Vietnam?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2024.
- How do Guatemala and Vietnam rank globally for informal care employment?
- Guatemala ranks 16th and Vietnam ranks 15th of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as Informal care employment (previous ILO definition - ICLS13). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
With the aim of promoting international comparability, statistics presented on ILOSTAT are based on standard international definitions wherever feasible and may differ from official national figures. This series is based on the 13th ICLS definitions. For time series comparability, it includes countries that have implemented the 19th ICLS standards, for which data are also available in the Work Statistics -- 19th ICLS (WORK) database. This harmonized series for informal employment is derived using the same set of criteria across countries to improve comparability. The criteria used are based on employment status, institutional sector, destination of production, bookkeeping, registration, social security contribution, places of work and size. For more information, refer to the Worker and Sector Profiles (PROF) database description.